Your message dated Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:41:40 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#331813: efax depends on debconf *with* | debconf-2.0
alternate
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at maintonly) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Oct 2005 23:41:32 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 04 16:41:32 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from kitenet.net [64.62.161.42] (postfix)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EMwPc-0004WL-00; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:41:32 -0700
Received: by kitenet.net (Postfix, from userid 500)
id 0AB3717F72; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:41:32 +0000 (GMT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: efax depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks
cdebconf transition
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:41:32 +0000 (GMT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joey Hess)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Package: efax
This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency
to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its
dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0
Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf,
and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all.
debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been
provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began
automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it
generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current
version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and
review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is
modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it.
This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to
the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced
mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and
it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign
this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature
your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 331813-done) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Oct 2005 16:01:26 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Oct 05 09:01:25 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from kitenet.net [64.62.161.42] (postfix)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1ENBht-000763-00; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 09:01:25 -0700
Received: from dragon.kitenet.net (98-041-dial.xtn.net [66.118.98.41])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client CN "Joey Hess", Issuer "Joey Hess" (verified OK))
by kitenet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2CC17DF2
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:01:21 +0000 (GMT)
Received: by dragon.kitenet.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 3A04ABFA45; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:41:40 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:41:40 -0400
From: Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#331813: efax depends on debconf *with* | debconf-2.0 alternate
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
--cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MJ Ray wrote:
> Huh? The latest upload (efax 1:0.9a-16) has that dependency.
> Should your mass bug report have indicated a Version, is it
> malfunctioning or what?
I missed that update, my script checked 1:0.9a-15.
--=20
see shy jo
--cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDQ/Q0d8HHehbQuO8RAlZTAKDBfpPEbh1xKoHXFEPCkPPTGu7FHwCfT05j
wp4vfNhD7nei+H8FF5beM6s=
=zs7L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM--
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
